News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Engineered photosynthesis demonstrated in animals in vivo... by Mistletoe on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @07:48PM (#33902622)
For others that may be having similar thoughts, I’ve looked into this before and met this roadblock haha. It’s a great thought experiment for just how much energy a human uses and how much area we need for growing food in the world.

> Our body’s demand for glucose is higher than photosynthesis can accommodate. Associate professor Lindsay Turnbull of the University of Oxford determined that if the surface area of an adult woman contained chlorophyll like a leaf, it would produce only 1% of the daily energy requirements for the person to survive. To live by photosynthesis alone, the woman would need a green body with the surface the size of a tennis court.

Re:Engineered photosynthesis demonstrated in animals in vivo... by russdill on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @11:48PM (#33904292)
It's also worth noting that biological photosynthesis is very inefficient. A human consumes on average about 150 watts. The earth gets about 1400 watts of sunlight per square meter. It's not completely impossible to one day have bio-engineered solar powered animals.
Re:Engineered photosynthesis demonstrated in animals in vivo... by Mistletoe on Thursday December 08, 2022 @11:45AM (#33910003)
Some napkin math (may be wrong).

A man is about two square meters of skin. Assuming they lay down to photosynthesize most efficiently from perpendicular sun rays that would be one square meter, so 1400 watts. You would need an ~11% efficient conversion to meet the needs of a human. Plants currently top out at about 6.4% for highly efficient C4 plants like sugarcane. 11% is the maximum efficiency possible.

>The photosynthetic efficiency is dependent on the wavelength of the light absorbed. Photosynthetically active radiation (400–700 nm) constitutes only 45% of the actual daylight. Therefore the maximum theoretical efficiency of the photosynthesis process is approximately 11%.

Not only would you have to somehow replicate the extreme efficiency of sugarcane on animal skin (an organ with no support structures for photosynthesis), you’d have to double the efficiency.

Re:Engineered photosynthesis demonstrated in animals in vivo... by winReInstall on Thursday December 08, 2022 @05:21AM (#33906334)
Re:Engineered photosynthesis demonstrated in animals in vivo... by edgyquant on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @07:55PM (#33902671)
Makes sense actually. Animals have had half a billion years: if photosynthesis could power them some of them would be using it.
Re:Engineered photosynthesis demonstrated in animals in vivo... by russdill on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @11:40PM (#33904236)
The sloth actually supplements their diet with photosynthetic algae that live on their fur. But their metabolism is very very slow.
Re:Engineered photosynthesis demonstrated in animals in vivo... by pvaldes on Thursday December 08, 2022 @06:19AM (#33906708)
That would be equivalent to us carrying a lattice pot around and then eating the lattice. Not a real example of photosynthetic animals.
Re:Engineered photosynthesis demonstrated in animals in vivo... by krageon on Thursday December 08, 2022 @08:05AM (#33907450)
The solutions you describe are functionally identical, so I do not see why it wouldn't be a "real example".
Re:Engineered photosynthesis demonstrated in animals in vivo... by winReInstall on Thursday December 08, 2022 @05:22AM (#33906340)
There are undersea slugs who store devoured algeas chlorophyl in transparent pockets under the skin.
Re:Engineered photosynthesis demonstrated in animals in vivo... by runsWphotons on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @09:59PM (#33903580)
in the future women will be even more wrinkled
Re:Engineered photosynthesis demonstrated in animals in vivo... by drewm1980 on Thursday December 08, 2022 @06:23AM (#33906726)
So basically, she would have to be a tree.